The Supreme Court justices stance on President Obamas Medicaid expansion provision could be good news for states that want to lower their drinking ages from the federally mandated 21.

...

The Supreme Court ruled that threatening to take away a states Medicaid funding unless the state does what the federal government wants is unconstitutionally coercive and declared it invalid. Because any given part of a Supreme Court decision can set a precedent for future laws and can even invalidate an established law if it is challenged using the Supreme Courts new argument, the Medicaid decision could affect the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.

In 1984 Congress passed the law that made it illegal for anyone in the United States under the age of 21 to purchase or publicly possess alcohol. While drinking laws are and always have been a states issue, the federal government was able to enforce the minimum age by making it a part of the Federal Aid Highway Act

It will be taxed out of the free market and drinkers will return underground to commit their health crimes.

Doubtful. You have to keep the masses sedated.

One only has to look to England where binge drinking is rampant (especially among the youngest). Free contraceptives leads to another sexual revolution where debauchery and swinging explode into the mainstream.

As long as the people can have their "fun", they will not revolt against oppressive gov't.

7
posted on 07/02/2012 5:31:22 PM PDT
by Erik Latranyi
(When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)

In 1984 Congress passed the law that made it illegal for anyone in the United States under the age of 21 to purchase or publicly possess alcohol. While drinking laws are and always have been a states issue, the federal government was able to enforce the minimum age by making it a part of the Federal Aid Highway Act .

So for 28 years, states have been compelled to keep the minimum legal drinking age at 21 or face losing their federal highway funding.

When article writers like this begin to pull out all the opinions and concurrences and dissents and add up the five justices who ruled That the feds cannot punish states then I would believe . Until then, I am firm in my belief that the liberal justices that joined Roberts specifically did not not concur with “that states could not be punished.” Show me the CARFAX.

The Supreme Court justices stance on President Obamas Medicaid expansion provision could be good news for states that want to lower their drinking ages from the federally mandated 21.

Roberts put the kabosh on that little fantasy...

And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions.See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203206 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).

The government has pharmaceutical companies to derive concoctions to keep us sedated. Wasn’t it George Bush who wanted all Americans to have a psychological evaluation to be given medication if necessary. Even republicans come up with some crazy ideas to control people. There is no limit to their insanity.

The crown may be content with allowing their citizens drunkenness. We take care of most of their defense. They also do not have guns. We do. The government here would rather control us than have us crazy in the streets like all those tattered drinkers that fought in our first revolution.

Through a perversion of federalism which began during the 1973 “energy crisis” when Congress imposed a nationwide 55 mph speed limit by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.

Next step, MADD found it easier to lobby one legislative body (US Congress) than 50 state legislatures so Congress imposed a nationwide 21 years drinking age. by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.

Next step, MADD found it easier to lobby one legislative body (US Congress) than 50 state legislatures so Congress imposed a nationwide 0.08 BAC DUI standard by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.

There are some who have been advocating using this same thuggery to require all states to ban the use of cell phones (some proposals call for hands-free only, others do not) while driving.

If private individuals were to engage in such tactics they
would be charged with EXTORTION.

When article writers like this begin to pull out all the opinions and concurrences and dissents and add up the five justices who ruled That the feds cannot punish states then I would believe . Until then, I am firm in my belief that the liberal justices that joined Roberts specifically did not not concur with that states could not be punished. Show me the CARFAX.

The section of the opinion reining in Congress' ability to force state compliance, or to endure higher taxes, or to take an unreimbursed hit to local tax revenue, through the withholding of federal funds to comply with unfunded or underfunded mandates or just naked federal diktat, drew a 7-2 majority.

What kills me about both pro and con in this debate is the belief that setting the drinking age at 21 means 18, 19, 20 year olds aren’t drinking. How naive do you have to be to believe that?

Even college presidents, who’ve seen a drunken student or two, admit that all the 21 law does is drive parties underground, where the booze flows like water, drinking games are prevalent, etc. etc.

Social drinking is part of socialization i.e. maturation. Even though bars aren’t libraries, there still is enough overt and/or subtle social pressure to avoid getting completely blotto. Kids are never exposed to the concept of one or two drinks before dinner, to relax after work etc. so their only conception of alcohol is bacchanalia.

This is what the 21 crowd, including MADD and other cryptoprohibitionists either don’t see because of their agenda or refusal to face the truth.

It seems that some people out there read this web site, or at least my posts. I pointed out that not only does the federal drinking age get invalidated, so do federal seat belt laws, and (although I didn’t note this one) also the upcoming cell phone ban.

..... Well .... Considering that ObamaCare will drive the price of Alcohol through the roof to the glorious prices experienced by those living in America's Hat (Canada) ..... I don't think boozing will be as affordable as it once was during the days when we had a free America.

The cost of a 12 pack of beer on sale in the Great White North is around $19.99 and a 24 pack is around $30 -$40 buckaroos or more (depending on your choice of quality) ...... just something to look forward to folks. But on the other hand we get expensive healthcare in exchange!!

Hmmmmm .... what the heck do we really gain by doing this?? Somebody please tell me!

..... Well .... Considering that ObamaCare will drive the price of Alcohol through the roof to the glorious prices experienced by those living in America's Hat (Canada) ..... I don't think boozing will be as affordable as it once was during the days when we had a free America.

The cost of a 12 pack of beer on sale in the Great White North is around $19.99 and a 24 pack is around $30 -$40 buckaroos or more (depending on your choice of quality) ...... just something to look forward to folks. But on the other hand we get expensive healthcare in exchange!!

Hmmmmm .... what the heck do we really gain by doing this?? Somebody please tell me!

Maybe, maybe not. I think the mandate with light bulbs was different as it didn’t require each state to pass a law, outlawing (normal) light bulbs. But drinking age, seat belts, cell phones, are mandates that require state laws - even if most of the states (quietly) agree...like Texas, under GOVERNOR RICK PERRY.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.